Allpar Forums banner

21 - 40 of 52 Posts

·
Enjoying the ride.
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
Interesting. The quality of the vinyl certainly plays into the sound you get out!! My original Colombia record, wore out and got tossed decades ago.

Yesterday night, I listened to my original copy of "Photograph". (Ringo Starr - 1973)
I was surprised how good is sounded, from a pop and click standpoint! I had an "ok" set up back then, but nothing spectacular. Guess the stylus back then, didn't carve it up too bad! Perhaps what I have now gets into the groove better, where there is less to no wear??

I remember that, at some point, certain companies DID used recycled vinyl, but I thought that was in the 80s, as CDs took over.
Man, early CDs sounded tinny. Again, MFSL and DCC made many remaster CDs from the master tapes, which sound MUCH better than the usual CDs which were made of second, third or whatever copies of the master tapes. Every generation loses some quality.

Thinking that some "Blood, Sweat and Tears" will get queued up later today.
I have Dark Side of the Moon, MFSL, too. :)
That will need a Guinness chaser! LOL!
I had read that during the oil crunch or 73-75, many pressing plants used a lot of regrind in their records. Many times they would grind whole record returns, paper labels and all. Because of that, I have found it to be a crapshoot on mid 70s record pressing quality. What was really sad was that ABC was the worst on QC and Steely Dan were on that label. Its sad to get one of their albums and have it pop and tick ruining what would be a spectacular sounding album. I also agree on early reissue CDs sounding tinny. I've had to trade up on several CDs I bought on the cheap originally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
JA - What are you spinning these days?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
Man, I should set up my turntable again... I still think the best sound comes from tubes but I don't have tubes myself... too much heat. These days it's Sennheisers!
I had to sell my McIntosh 275, 1997 version in stainless, to raise cash for the #88 resto.
Before I did I performed an A-B comparison to my old Carver TFM-35x.
I did very critical listening!!!
The Mac sounded a little different in the mid range...voices on some recordings.
The bass was tighter for the Carver. Both went as deep as my speakers could handle. (Vandersteen 3A Signatures, at that time)
Treble was the same, as in cymbal sheen, "air", decay....

The Carver "TFM" stands for transfer function modified to be more "tube sounding" Bob Carver designed the TFM series for guys that like the tube sound, but not the tube heat, hassle, and COST of tube equipment.

So, out went the McIntosh and in went my old Carver, bought new in 1996 by me from Circuit City.
I had no regrets. In fact, the comparison made me feel pretty good about the relatively cheap costing Carver holding it's own to the highly
regarded McIntosh 275!! And the Carver has given me 24 years of trouble free service.

Heck, 4 new McIntosh output tubes for the 275 cost more than you can buy a used Carver TFM amp for today!!
 

·
Enjoying the ride.
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
Man, I should set up my turntable again... I still think the best sound comes from tubes but I don't have tubes myself... too much heat. These days it's Sennheisers!
I have had a pair of Sennheiser headphones for over ten years now. Love those things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
I have had a pair of Sennheiser headphones for over ten years now. Love those things.
model??
I’m thinking about a pair of headphones. But, don’t know what’s good or bad about them.
 

·
Enjoying the ride.
Joined
·
2,164 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
model??
I’m thinking about a pair of headphones. But, don’t know what’s good or bad about them.
HDR130. I'm sure they have replaced that model with something else by now.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,258 Posts
model??
I’m thinking about a pair of headphones. But, don’t know what’s good or bad about them.
My go-to are actually a set of cheap ($40) ones they no longer make, but they are the most comfortable headphones I've ever had or tried, including the more expensive Sennheisers. I have a couple of pairs of decently rated ones you could have for a small fee, not much worn... sometimes the reviews lie about comfort (or people have smaller heads than I do, maybe).

I've had the same set of Sony “studio” headphones since the 1980s, but I haven't been able to wear them for years. They were around $100 then and they're around $100 now, I think. MDR-80?

I am annoyed by Sennheiser’s pacing in product refresh; it's like they get something everyone likes and recommends, and it's time to get rid of it.

I would look at head-fi.org if you don't mind a fire hose of info. Now if you want a fountain pen...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,984 Posts
I bought Bose QuietComfort headphones recently. They have a single AA battery-powered amplifier that sounds phenomenal, and you can listen with the amplifier turned off, although the sound is not as rich or loud. I've seen prices over $300, but I got them for under $150.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Z and DC-93

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
I was lucky enough to score an audiophile level quality copy of my all time favorite LP recently. (an Archive Master)
The first "McCartney" lp, after the Beatles broke up.

It's a 1973 1st pressing from Japan done by Toshiba/EMI off the master tapes. It's considered a reissue, not being done in 1970.
I can not believe how rich and detailed the sound is. NO background noise at all.
Much better than my original US 1970 issues, stamped "STERLING RH" in the run off grooves.
Even better than the CD, done by Steve Hoffman on the DCC label.

So, if anyone wants a "best" copy of their favorite LP, in perfect condition, see this guy: ClevelandVinyl.com
He may be able to help you out. Expensive? Yes. But you only live once.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,258 Posts
Mixing really matters. Sometimes when I was digitizing records and looking at iTunes “for digital” tracks, I would have to mix-and-match (so to speak) because the mixing on some of the “specially for digital” was awful or exceptional. All over the map!

I have to say - Randy Bachman really comes across as a great mixer. (He did his own mixing for the most part, at least with BTO and personal stuff.) The CD releases of the band's 1970s music come across as flat compared with the records, except the one “high definition” (except it wasn't) album.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
A lot of old CDs were made from 2nd and 3rd generation tapes.
When CDs became popular, most were rushed out to the public.
A lot had too much “treble seasoning”!
Remastered audio is only as good as the guys doing the work.

Keep in mind the original mix is what the artist intended and signed off on.

Yes, a later re-do can sound better today, but it’s apples to oranges, imo.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,984 Posts
I have several Stevie Wonder CDs from his 70s albums, and the sound quality is as terrible as the vinyl. No one cleaned it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC-93

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,258 Posts
A lot of old CDs were made from 2nd and 3rd generation tapes.
When CDs became popular, most were rushed out to the public.
A lot had too much “treble seasoning”!
Remastered audio is only as good as the guys doing the work.

Keep in mind the original mix is what the artist intended and signed off on.

Yes, a later re-do can sound better today, but it’s apples to oranges, imo.
I have no idea what went on with the BTO releases, but I would guarantee they were done as cheeply as possible, save for one "special edition." I don't believe the band had any input. The mixing seemed identical to the records, but the sound was flat. My guess is they overcompressed without paying much attention, on inferior equipment.

CDs did get rushed out way too quickly and mastering is definitely an art. The original mix... I don't know that the artist always “intended and signed off” on it... because sometimes, the label had the power and the artist did not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
I’d agree on most artists, but not any of the traditional “super groups”.
Beatles
Stones
Who
Led Zeppelin
Moody Blues
Pink Floyd
And possibly a few others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,297 Posts
I have no idea what went on with the BTO releases, but I would guarantee they were done as cheeply as possible, save for one "special edition." I don't believe the band had any input. The mixing seemed identical to the records, but the sound was flat. My guess is they overcompressed without paying much attention, on inferior equipment.

CDs did get rushed out way too quickly and mastering is definitely an art. The original mix... I don't know that the artist always “intended and signed off” on it... because sometimes, the label had the power and the artist did not.
BTO your favorite group?
I had a girlfriend that LOVED BTO... Played it non-stop.

She loved, "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet".

She was right. Last time I saw a pic of her online, she was around 350 pounds! :eek::oops:o_O
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,258 Posts
True, the groups that were either most popular or still producing got much better treatment. Later BTO albums that came out after CDs were of course far better in quality.

Classical was an interesting mix, and they would label the CDs things like A|D|D (analog tape, digital something, digital something) — if it was recorded for digital specifically, it was D|D|D. I used to do master recordings (at the university level, nothing professional) on reel-to-reel... my personal recording, hooked in on cassette tape, was better though with more hiss; I think the reason was the antique nature of our reel-to-reel machine coupled with cheep tape. I was able to convince them to use a better tape than the cheapest grade.
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
Top